The Addiction Restriction: Addiction and the Right to Bear Arms

This Article is the culmination of a yearlong research project, and it is the first to address addiction and drug use in the area of Second Amendment law. I argue that addicts may be disarmed, if they are dangerous. My dangerousness test centers on illicit use and imminent danger. That is, do the facts and circumstances prove that an individual is in fact a danger? To put it another way, disarmament is appropriate when there exists demonstrable evidence that a person poses a significant and imminent risk of causing public injury. This Article develops and expands upon some themes and arguments that were first sketched out in my articles, Armed and Under the Influence: The Second Amendment and the Intoxicant Rule After Bruen (2024) and Defining Dangerousness: When Disarmament is Appropriate (2024). There is growing confusion within the lower courts regarding when an individual, particularly those who have a history of drug use or addiction, may have their Second Amendment rights restricted. This Article intends to clarify the appropriate standard. The goal of this Article is to aid in determining when an individual should be permanently disarmed. Part II surveys the history of addiction. This section examines the commonness of addiction around the time of the founding to the early twentieth century. Furthermore, Part III reviews the relevant legislative action relating to firearm possession, use, control, and addiction. The essential claim of Part III contends that modern laws restricting the possession of a firearm due to addiction are unconstitutional. Following an examination of the relevant history and legislation, Part IV considers the arguments in favor of prohibiting addicts from possessing firearms. Part V focuses on the modern and developing controversies surrounding criminalizing the possession of firearms because of an individual’s history of addiction. Part VI, then, examines when an addict may be disarmed.